Pretty revolutionary.
It was the first time a colony has ever revolted against its mother state and it formed republic that was not common during that age and time.
2007-01-25 16:20:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Gerald 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
~First, it was not a revolution. The existing government was not overthrown. It was a civil war, a war for separation and national independence.
Second, it was hardly novel. Revolutions have occured thoughout history as have rebellions and wars to overthrow foreign rulers.
The idea of revolution as a philisophical concept had been wriiten about for centuries, and Jefferson, Paine, Adams, Mason, Morris and the rest borrowed heavily from those writings.
What makes the war unique was not the war itself, but the aftermath. When they finally got done dicking around for about 10 years after the fighting stopped, the rebels and terrorists, who, with the help of their French allies (whom they abandoned a few short years later - there is that pattern in Franco-American relations) were able to force a treaty, then wrote up a pretty neat document - again borrowing heavily from French and British sources - called the Constitution and they formed a new government which in many respects resembled that of the British, sans monarchy, with a good dose of Grecian and Roman influence thrown in.
Naturally, if British supply lines had not been so untenable, the result would have been different, and had the Brits not been occupied against so many other foes in so many other places at the time, it is unlikely the war would have even happened.
2007-01-26 04:43:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Oscar Himpflewitz 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Simply put, if you rise up in arms against your rulers:
(A) if you succeed, it's a Revolution
(B) if you fail, it's a rebellion.
It is in large part responsible for the severely impoverished French economy during the reign of Louis XVI and therefore, explains the raucous popular unrest which generated the French Revolution in 1789. (1)
The most radical impact was the sense that all men have an equal voice in government and that inherited status carried no political weight in the new republic. The British principles of parliamentary democracy were extended to remove all remaining unelected (hereditary) positions in the government structure, and the individual rights laid out in numerous earlier legal documents were collected together into charters, the most notable of which was the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Thus came the widespread assertion of liberty, individual rights, and equality which would prove core values to Americans. The greatest challenge to the old order in Europe was the idea that government should be by consent of the governed and the delegation of power to the government through written constitutions. The example of the first successful revolution against a European empire provided a model for many other colonial peoples who realized that they too could break away and become self-governing nations. (2)
2007-01-26 00:56:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by Carl 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It was revolutionary in that is sparked the idea of western colonies (not just britian's 13, but also Spains holds in the western hemisphere) seperating and becoming independant from their mother country.
As far as it being revolutionary from the stand point of the colonies defeating a major world power is not true. England COULD have and most likely WOULD have won if it weren't for some internal problems.
2007-01-26 00:23:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by wolface6999 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not very.
The system of gummint was borrowed from France. The idea of an independent state outside an empire had been around forever.
The only revolutionary thing is that there was finally a bunch of people dumb enough to believe the rhetoric of its rulers. The people have not got any smarter.
2007-01-26 05:02:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by iansand 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
It revolted against the idea of kings and aristocrcy.
" Government of the people, by the people, and for the people"
Not by any ' special ' few idiots !!!!!
Before that all humans were ruled by kings ( some good and bad ) many kinds of tribal leaders and tyrants ( Stalin... Hitler ).
Catch up this is easy stuff.
The R. War was very much R.
Hope you get it;
Jonnie
2007-01-26 00:40:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jonnie 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Revolutiony in the fact that such a fledgling state could oppose and defeat the British Empire, one of the greatest armies in the world.
Of course, Britain was already occupied guarding itself against Britain. If they weren't history would be very different.
2007-01-26 00:25:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by GG Alan Alda 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It wasn't all that revolutionary, the founding fathers just wanted a snappy name for the war.
2007-01-26 00:42:35
·
answer #8
·
answered by chris B 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
true revolution happens in our self. with no war, just finding peace and love everywhere.
but revolutionary war, was war against capitalism or before against feudalism. They where not so revolutionary because of peoples consciousness. They take advantage of having political power. My be in former Yugoslavia was the best socialization revolution ever. justOne
2007-01-26 00:27:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by justOne 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
that a people can govern themself's was the most revolutionary
2007-01-26 09:38:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Hector 4
·
1⤊
0⤋